As an aid to clarity with respect to the two sides of this debate, you suggested a syllogistic presentation of each.

I have given you mine:

What is not forbidden is permitted. Ergo.

Now, what the other side is seeking is the following:

A definitely true universal major premiss from which it follows that it is sinful to assist at Masses offered by Catholic priests mistaken about Benedict XVI's status and therefore mentioning his name in the Te igitur and having the predominant intention of offering Mass in the Catholic Church and as the Catholic Church wishes.

Each time a neo-sedevacantist has put forward a novelty which claims to fulfil this purpose somebody has identified some exception or other to it, thus demolishing it as a universal. In this latest case you admitted that one could assist at the Mass of a priest who was innocently confused about the status of the then-deceased Pius XI. You then compounded the destruction of Fr. Cekada’s original principle by seeking to modify it by adding the qualifier, “public heretic.” That is, you suggested that if the priest mentions a public heretic we must avoid his Mass, but not if he mentions a dead pope instead of the reigning one. But in thus seeking to modify the principle you in fact replaced it, because it is manifest that if one can assist at a Mass at which a non-pope is named as pope, without that error being put into your own mouth, so to speak, then Fr. Cekada’s claim that the layman in the pew necessarily consents to and in fact makes his own every act of the priest at the altar is not universally true – it is in fact not true.

But Fr. Cekada himself demolished his claim in at least two ways before you got to it:

a) By putting forward as an edifying example his own behaviour from the ages of 14 to 22 in assisting actively at "guitar Masses" whilst not joining in the Kumbaya - thus showing that even if you and I agree that this behaviour was not objectively defensible, he himself does not concur. This wrecks the claim that his principle is definitely true – that is, in his mind silence suffices to undermine any presumption of approval or participation.

b) By failing to advise casual or new attendees at his own chapel that it would be a sacrilege for them to assist at his Mass whilst believing that Benedict XVI is pope. This wrecks the principle also by implicitly but unmistakeably denying it. If the layman in the pew necessarily consents to and in fact makes his own every act of the priest at the altar, then the very pointed and clear omission of Benedict’s name by Fr. Cekada is a “lie” on the part of the sedeplenist layman in the pew.

I hope this helps to clarify the present state of the discussion.

_________________In Christ our King.

Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:10 pm

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Re:

AMWills wrote:

He demolishes his own argument in the very opening paragraph of his thesis. No one else needs to refute it.

Great post, Wills.

_________________In Christ our King.

Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:43 pm

donumabdeo

Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 12:30 amPosts: 51

Re: Re:

AMWills wrote:

He demolishes his own argument in the very opening paragraph of his thesis. No one else needs to refute it.

Are you sure that it demolishes the argument or does it merely discredit it?

Thu Jan 24, 2008 2:27 am

donumabdeo

Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 12:30 amPosts: 51

Re: Newest article from Fr. Cekada on Una Cum Question

I know that it may be poor etiquette to "double post" so please forgive me for that. I have read through this thread once, and perhaps I need to read it once more because I forgot the defense which was made to the following questionary accusation: To those of you who attend "una cum" Masses which pray for the "pope", and who consider yourselves sedevacantists, how is it that you do not consider yourselves professing a lie when you go to an "una cum" Mass? What am I missing?

Sun Jan 27, 2008 11:30 pm

donumabdeo

Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 12:30 amPosts: 51

Re: Newest article from Fr. Cekada on Una Cum Question

John Lane wrote:

Now, the fact is that this idea that we must separate ourselves liturgically from those who do not agree with us in our (admittedly, rather radical) view, took a very long time to surface. I don’t say that it only took a long time for people to conclude that we must stay home alone – it took decades – but I say that even this “obvious inconsistency” took a long time to manifest itself. Always distrust “obvious” things which manage to hide themselves from you, Mario. That’s a life tip.

John, perhaps the reason that it took so long for the idea that "una cum" Masses ought to be avoided to surface is that there is a very intense desire for us as catholics to receive holy communion and fulfill the precept of the Church which commands that we attend Mass every Sunday, and also that there were so few who would support someone who would take that position; moreover, the duty to avoid "una cum" Masses seems less than grave to most to those who adhere to the position Fr. Cekada described, especially while under the pressure to attend Mass. To badly analogize this dilemma, imagine someone who is starving and you have no money to help them, so you go into your home and take money off your roommate's desk who would be angry with you even if you were giving it to someone starving, but you do it anyway because the situation seems so grave. Now this is still actual sin if you know that it is a sin to steal regardless of circumstances. This perhaps bares some similarity to Fr. Cekada's sentiments. and those of home aloners towards the idea of attending "una cum" Masses. I'm sure you can come up with a better analogy than I made, and if the analogy serves more to distract from the issue than to aid discussion, please disregard it, and instead attend to the relevant points that I hope I made.

Mon Jan 28, 2008 12:00 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Newest article from Fr. Cekada on Una Cum Question

donumabdeo wrote:

To those of you who attend "una cum" Masses which pray for the "pope", and who consider yourselves sedevacantists, how is it that you do not consider yourselves professing a lie when you go to an "una cum" Mass? What am I missing?

You're missing the assumption implicit in the question, which is that the layman in the pew is deemed to make his own every act of the priest at the altar. If that unproved assumption is set aside, the question falls away.

_________________In Christ our King.

Mon Jan 28, 2008 12:28 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Newest article from Fr. Cekada on Una Cum Question

donumabdeo wrote:

John, perhaps the reason that it took so long for the idea that "una cum" Masses ought to be avoided to surface is that there is a very intense desire for us as catholics to receive holy communion and fulfill the precept of the Church which commands that we attend Mass every Sunday, ...

No, because we are not talking about a question purely practical. My point was that the entire theoretical basis of this position is a novelty.

Compare the "pope" question to this one. The theology manuals from before V2 mentioned the "pope heretic" thesis, and when V2 happened some men started to point to this thesis as a possible explanation of the crisis. Later, some of those men formed the judgement that the pope-heretic thesis did actually apply to the case, and became sedevacantists.

In the present case there was never any thesis along the lines presented by Fr. Cekada, it was never discussed, and therefore it never had any practical or concrete application. Decades after V2, it appeared, manufactured out of whole cloth, tailored to a clear purpose.

I've already posted the following, but it bears repeating.

John Lane wrote:

Consider these questions, each of which can only be answered in the negative.

Did Fr. Cekada discover, in circa 1999, that there was a prayer for the pope in the Te igitur? Did he discover that the Roman Pontiff is the principle and foundation of unity of the Church? Did he discover that for the celebrant to pray for the pope by name was one of the clearest signs of communion with him? Did he discover that the faithful are active cooperators in all that the priest does at the altar? Did he discover that most traditional priests are not sedevacantists? Did he discover that it follows logically from the idea that Benedict is pope that he is orthodox, a fellow member of the Church, the visible head of the Mystical Body, a co-offerer of the Holy Sacrifice with the rest of the members of the Church, etc.?

In a word, did Fr. Cekada discover each of these obvious facts and commonplaces of theology in 1999? Or had he really never seriously adverted to them prior to 1999? Obviously, neither proposition is admissible. To admit either would be to admit that he did not know the very ABCs of ecclesiology or that he had not given them any thought. But not only could he never admit such a thing, nobody would believe him, for the simple and obvious reason that it is precisely the consideration of these truths, and related ones, which makes a man realise that the See of Rome is vacant.

What would be useful is to ask Fr. Cekada to identify the thing which he either did not know or did not understand prior to changing his position on this question. I don’t think he can say what it is, because I don’t think he knows. If he did, it would be somewhere in his lengthy article, but there is nothing in that work which could conceivably fulfil that description.

What did Fr. Cekada learn in 1999? When we find out the answer to that question, we could potentially learn it ourselves.

When you change position, you should say so and explain why. Any other procedure carries a bad odour.

donumabdeo wrote:

To badly analogize this dilemma, imagine someone who is starving and you have no money to help them, so you go into your home and take money off your roommate's desk who would be angry with you even if you were giving it to someone starving, but you do it anyway because the situation seems so grave. Now this is still actual sin if you know that it is a sin to steal regardless of circumstances.

Well, this is wrong. It is entirely lawful, and therefore not theft at all, to take from somebody who has an excess in order to provide the necessities of life to another.

donumabdeo wrote:

This perhaps bares some similarity to Fr. Cekada's sentiments.

Yes, it is equally erroneous.

_________________In Christ our King.

Mon Jan 28, 2008 12:45 am

donumabdeo

Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 12:30 amPosts: 51

Re: Newest article from Fr. Cekada on Una Cum Question

John Lane wrote:

donumabdeo wrote:

To those of you who attend "una cum" Masses which pray for the "pope", and who consider yourselves sedevacantists, how is it that you do not consider yourselves professing a lie when you go to an "una cum" Mass? What am I missing?

You're missing the assumption implicit in the question, which is that the layman in the pew is deemed to make his own every act of the priest at the altar. If that unproved assumption is set aside, the question falls away.

Pardon me, but that's a funny response. I must say that I laughed heartily. Not that it wasn't a good one! I think that a distinction should be made between knowingly attending a Mass with errors, and attending a Mass in which a priest accidentally does what would be illicit. I wish first to ask you whether it is wrong or right to knowingly and willingly attend an illicit Mass? Would you agree that the Mass has been designed so that heretics be not prayed for in it? Isn't it against the intent of those who have brought the liturgy to the way it is to have a prayer in it which is for a heretic? I have read you quote something to the effect of, "what is not illicit is licit". This is an obvious truth, but if there is any question that something may be illicit, we should act as though it were illicit until proven otherwise. God deserves the benefit of the doubt when the possibility of offending him is in question.

Mon Jan 28, 2008 3:47 am

donumabdeo

Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 12:30 amPosts: 51

Re: Newest article from Fr. Cekada on Una Cum Question

John Lane wrote:

donumabdeo wrote:

John, perhaps the reason that it took so long for the idea that "una cum" Masses ought to be avoided to surface is that there is a very intense desire for us as catholics to receive holy communion and fulfill the precept of the Church which commands that we attend Mass every Sunday, ...

No, because we are not talking about a question purely practical. My point was that the entire theoretical basis of this position is a novelty.

My point was that it may have been a novelty because it was seemingly impractical before. My reading of pre-VII sedevacantist ideology is virtually none. Would you say that St. Robert certainly gave consideration to the Te Igitur part of the Mass in his writing concerning the potential for a heretical pope?

John Lane wrote:

Compare the "pope" question to this one. The theology manuals from before V2 mentioned the "pope heretic" thesis, and when V2 happened some men started to point to this thesis as a possible explanation of the crisis. Later, some of those men formed the judgement that the pope-heretic thesis did actually apply to the case, and became sedevacantists.

In the present case there was never any thesis along the lines presented by Fr. Cekada, it was never discussed, and therefore it never had any practical or concrete application. Decades after V2, it appeared, manufactured out of whole cloth, tailored to a clear purpose.

That is an interesting history of how sedevacantism came to be. While I take your word on this matter, obviously prayer for heretics in Mass has been condemned, no? I consider that a precedent. Should I not? Are you saying that since Fr. Cekada's explanation had not been discussed before VII nor applied immediately after VII, it must be invalid? Could you elaborate on what I have emboldened?

John Lane wrote:

I've already posted the following, but it bears repeating.

John Lane wrote:

Consider these questions, each of which can only be answered in the negative.

Did Fr. Cekada discover, in circa 1999, that there was a prayer for the pope in the Te igitur? Did he discover that the Roman Pontiff is the principle and foundation of unity of the Church? Did he discover that for the celebrant to pray for the pope by name was one of the clearest signs of communion with him? Did he discover that the faithful are active cooperators in all that the priest does at the altar? Did he discover that most traditional priests are not sedevacantists? Did he discover that it follows logically from the idea that Benedict is pope that he is orthodox, a fellow member of the Church, the visible head of the Mystical Body, a co-offerer of the Holy Sacrifice with the rest of the members of the Church, etc.?

In a word, did Fr. Cekada discover each of these obvious facts and commonplaces of theology in 1999? Or had he really never seriously adverted to them prior to 1999? Obviously, neither proposition is admissible. To admit either would be to admit that he did not know the very ABCs of ecclesiology or that he had not given them any thought. But not only could he never admit such a thing, nobody would believe him, for the simple and obvious reason that it is precisely the consideration of these truths, and related ones, which makes a man realise that the See of Rome is vacant.

Clearly, you are correct, he was fully aware of all those facts according to their negatives.

John Lane wrote:

What would be useful is to ask Fr. Cekada to identify the thing which he either did not know or did not understand prior to changing his position on this question. I don’t think he can say what it is, because I don’t think he knows. If he did, it would be somewhere in his lengthy article, but there is nothing in that work which could conceivably fulfil that description.

What did Fr. Cekada learn in 1999? When we find out the answer to that question, we could potentially learn it ourselves.

Again, I do not think it is a matter of whether he had already considered the position he holds now, I think it's a matter of the fact that he is able to carry it out without being ostracized to the point of having no support. Perhaps I'm overstepping my bounds with this speculation.

John Lane wrote:

When you change position, you should say so and explain why. Any other procedure carries a bad odour.

donumabdeo wrote:

To badly analogize this dilemma, imagine someone who is starving and you have no money to help them, so you go into your home and take money off your roommate's desk who would be angry with you even if you were giving it to someone starving, but you do it anyway because the situation seems so grave. Now this is still actual sin if you know that it is a sin to steal regardless of circumstances.

Well, this is wrong. It is entirely lawful, and therefore not theft at all, to take from somebody who has an excess in order to provide the necessities of life to another.

I'll take your word for it, I always thought it was a sin.

John Lane wrote:

donumabdeo wrote:

This perhaps bares some similarity to Fr. Cekada's sentiments.

Yes, it is equally erroneous.

humorous

sorry about the edits.

Last edited by donumabdeo on Mon Jan 28, 2008 4:20 am, edited 1 time in total.

Mon Jan 28, 2008 4:05 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Newest article from Fr. Cekada on Una Cum Question

donumabdeo wrote:

I think that a distinction should be made between knowingly attending a Mass with errors, and attending a Mass in which a priest accidentally does what would be illicit.

I have no problem with making distinctions, even this one. But, you need to show that it would be unlawful to assist at a Mass in which a priest does something definitely illicit, even if he knows his action is illicit, and even if one were aware ot it oneself.

In other words, make your hypothetical class of Masses as horrible as you like, then prove that we may not assist at Masses which belong to that class, then show that the present case fits within that class.

donumabdeo wrote:

I wish first to ask you whether it is wrong or right to knowingly and willingly attend an illicit Mass?

What's an "illicit Mass"? Why won't anybody ever define this? I have asked what this term might mean in my article on this subject. I suggest that you review that and then tell me which of the possibilities you think is the correct one, and proceed from there.

donumabdeo wrote:

Would you agree that the Mass has been designed so that heretics be not prayed for in it?

No, I don't agree with that proposition at all - quite the contrary, in fact. Read Benedict XIV's Ex quo.

donumabdeo wrote:

I have read you quote something to the effect of, "what is not illicit is licit". This is an obvious truth, but if there is any question that something may be illicit, we should act as though it were illicit until proven otherwise. God deserves the benefit of the doubt when the possibility of offending him is in question.

Of course, but in this case there is nothing but psychology masking the absence of doctrine. Certainly nothing objectively solid.

One may not act with a doubtful conscience. I have no doubt about this matter. This is a question of law. Only a certain law obliges. Uncertain laws simply have no legal effect - they are as if they were non-existent. Therefore the neo-sedevacantists need to prove that there is a law along the lines that they claim. They refuse so much as to address the question formally along these lines, and I think that the reason for this is that they sense that it will spell disaster for their novelty.

Like all good "neo" propagandists, they know that in launching unjust wars of aggression against potential or actual allies, the first rule is to throw out all mental discipline and rely instead of voluminous accusations of a dramatic nature. In this way most men can be prevented from thinking clearly, and will instead sign up for a war they would otherwise reject.

To create a doubtful conscience about assisting at Holy Mass offered by a priest who is a Catholic, and whose predominant intention is to offer Holy Mass in accord with the will of the Church, the neo-seds need a properly constructed argument which leads to a certain conclusion - that conclusion being that it is unlawful to assist at a Mass which fulfills some generic category or other already proved to be verbotten for all. This is the universally true proposition mentioned above and which Fr. Cekada has not presented - and nor has anybody else.

_________________In Christ our King.

Mon Jan 28, 2008 4:17 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Newest article from Fr. Cekada on Una Cum Question

donumabdeo wrote:

My point was that it may have been a novelty because it was seemingly impractical before. My reading of pre-VII sedevacantist ideology is virtually none. Would you say that St. Robert certainly gave consideration to the Te Igitur part of the Mass in his writing concerning the potential for a heretical pope?

Of course not. In any case, there have been numerous historical examples of false popes with countless adherents, and this issue has never been so much as breathed about by any authority at all. An argument from silence is not usually strong, but in the present case it shouts.

Second, Fr Cekada clearly states that the attendee of such a Mass participates in, and fully assents to, the Canon (+ the consequent affirmations).

Yes, I know. His problem is that despite the facile attraction of such an assertion, supported as it is by irrelevant quotes carefully sculpted from their context

Well, Mr Lane is out for a week, but it just occurred to me to ask him to demonstrate how Fr Cekada's quotes are "rrelevant and carefully sculpted from their context." Would you have the time to do so, Mr Lane?

Fr Cekada wrote:

• Pope Innocent III (1198–1216): “Not only do the priests offer the sacrifice, but also all the faithful: for what the priest does personally by virtue of his ministry, the faithful do collectively by virtue of their intention.”• Maurice de la Taille SJ (1920): “The Congregation Who Assist at Mass, as Offerers.… Those who assist exert, in a greater degree than those who are not present, their native power to offer as members of the ecclesiastical body, in so far as they are more intimately united with the sacrifice by this outward expression of actual devotion. By their presence they indicate that they ratify, as far as in them lies, the offering which is made in their name, and hence by a special title they make it their own and offer it.• Henry Noldin SJ (1920): “The special and accessory offerers are those faithful who unite themselves in some way by their actions to the priest offering the Mass.… In the second place are those who are actually present at the Mass, who therefore participate by their will and their presence.”• Pope Pius XII (1947): “The people unite their hearts in praise, impetration, expiation and thanksgiving with the prayers or intention of the priest, even of the High Priest himself, so that in the one and the same offering of the victim and according to a visible sacerdotal rite, they may be presented to God the Father.”• Felix Cappello SJ (1954): “The special offerer (which many call the secondary and accessory offerer) is each and every member of the faithful who (as we have indicated above) joins in offering the sacrifice through some external assent [… which Suarez correctly describes as…] ‘to assist by consenting and by morally cooperating’.”• St. John Chrysostom: “The prayer wherein thanksgiving is made [the Canon] is common to both [that is, the priest and the people], it is not the priest to God. For it is only when he [the priest] has taken up their words, by which they have agreed that it is meetly and justly done, that he begins the action of thanksgiving or Eucharist.”• St. Augustine: “When you have heard the priest say: Lift up your hearts you reply We have lifted them up to the Lord. Take pains to answer truthfully, because you are answering in the presence of the action of God. Let it be so, as you say it is; do not allow your tongue to give utterance to what your heart knows is not true.… To say Amen is to subscribe to the truth. In Latin Amen means It is true.”• St. Remigius of Auxerre: “The Amen, which is answered by the whole church, means it is true. The faithful therefore give this reply to this great mystery, as they do in all legitimate prayer, and they as it were subscribe to its truth by so replying.

_________________Omnia ad Jesum per Mariam!

Tue Jan 29, 2008 9:36 pm

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Newest article from Fr. Cekada on Una Cum Question

austinmarie wrote:

Well, Mr Lane is out for a week, but it just occurred to me to ask him to demonstrate how Fr Cekada's quotes are "rrelevant and carefully sculpted from their context."

Well, I don't see how I could demonstrate this. It's simply a matter of observation which anybody can see if they wish to see it. Each of those quotes expresses a commonplace of theology, known by all at all relevant times. That is, Fr. Cekada, and every other traditional Catholic with more than the most elementary education in the Catholic religion, knew at every moment from Vatican II onwards, that the active participation at Holy Mass is the approval of, and indeed the very cooperation in, the acts of the priest at the altar. This is why we distinguish active participation from mere passive presence (e.g. that passive presence at Protestant prayers which is tolerable for good reasons). As I have said twenty times, none of this is news.

So, which is it? a) Fr. Cekada just found out this commonplace, and in his astonished disgust immediately announced his (belated) discovery to the world?b) Fr. Cekada knew all this before, but for reasons yet to be expressed he decided to keep it all a secret.

or could it be, c) It is not true that the layman who participates in the Holy Sacrifice is necessarily cooperating in the choices of the priest, such as, for example, the purpose for which he offers the Mass, the bishop that he thinks is his Ordinary, or the man he thinks is the Roman Pontiff.

Most traditional Catholics, including most sedevacantist clerics and laymen, have always taken (c) as the correct answer and still do to this day. The Guerardians and those few non-Guerardians who have come under their influence have adopted the novelty which outlaws most Masses around the world, to the great scandal of many.

In any case, it is certainly not possible for any sedevacantist who wishes to display any kind of real respect for his sedevacantist forebears to claim that the Guerardian anti-una-cum position is "obvious." Such a claim is nothing more than a species of contempt for all of those pioneer sedevacantists who failed to see this "obvious truth" for decade after decade. For those who think contempt a virtue, this presents no obstacle...

And Austinmarie, please take careful note that no SSPX-trained cleric (e.g. Bishop Sanborn, Fr. Cekada, et al.) has ever presented publicly a case that Joseph Ratzinger is a heretic. Nor did any of them ever present a case that Wojtyla or Montini were heretics. Instead, they have all of them contented themselves with indirect proofs from the indefectibility of the Church and similar, avoiding any direct assertion of heresy and its requisite proofs. Indeed, the Guerardians insist a priori that no accusation of heresy can be proved directly against these men. I have said several times that I think this is the fruit of Bishop Guerard des Laurier's training of the SSPX seminarians at Econe, and that - irony of ironies - it was precisely his "expertise" on the question of how heresy is identified and proved which wrecked the chances that the products of Econe would become sedevacantists. Instead, it is almost universally held by Econe-trained men that in the absence of an authoritative warning by the Church no conviction of heresy can be arrived at. Fr. Simoulin and the priests of the Italian SSPX District agree on this capital point with Fr. Ricossa, Bishop Sanborn, and the rest of the Guerardians, as their book "Sedevacantism, A False Solution to a Real Problem" states explicitly.

Now, if Fr. Cekada won't so much as present a case that Joseph Ratzinger is a heretic, what on earth is he doing insisting on the conclusion to the degree that we ought to stay home alone instead of assisting at any Mass in which his name is mentioned?

Let's make sure we appreciate the force of this point. Bishop Sanborn explicitly denies, with his teacher Bishop Guerard des Lauriers, that the crime of heresy can be proved in the absence of an authoritative warning by the Church; therefore, in order to notice the fact that Joseph Ratzinger is a heretic it is necessary to know various truths of ecclesiology generally unknown to the typical laymen, but found in the theology manuals, and to deduce from these truths that Ratzinger cannot be pope; it is then deduced as a further, secondary, conclusion, that this must be because of personal heresy on his part. Having successfully developed each of these arguments, the layman must then hold as certain that he has to stay home alone and not assist at any Mass in which this indirectly-proved heretic is named as pope. And if you think this sounds preposterous, well, I suggest very strongly that this is because it is preposterous.

I think "real" sedevacantists are entitled to feel that they are fighting a battle on many fronts - the Modernists, the sedeplenist traditionalist position, the Guerardian semi-plenist position, and now, the warmed-over "leaf theory" by which the Church is reduced to a few "pure" traditionalists who have "worked everything out."

_________________In Christ our King.

Wed Feb 06, 2008 12:56 pm

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Newest article from Fr. Cekada on Una Cum Question

Some have accused sedevacantists of not admitting to the existence of a now-famous Canon from the Fourth Council of Constantinople. Readers may be wondering who did the research that brought this canon to light, and first quoted it publicly. In other words, where did those who attack us get their quotes? Well, the same place they got most of their quotes - HERE at the Bellarmine Forums.

The following is from a post published on December 22, 2007:

Quote:

The sole exception that I have been able to discover to this rule is the following canon from the Eighth Ecumenical Council (Fourth Council of Constantinople): “No layman, monk, or cleric shall, previous to an examination and conciliar decision, leave the jurisdiction of his own patriarch, though he may pretend to know that the latter is guilty of a grave crime; nor shall he omit his name in the liturgy. The same rule is to be observed also by bishops and priests toward their patriarch. Whoever is found to act contrary to this decision of the holy council, shall, if a bishop or cleric, be suspended; if a monk or layman, excommunicated.”

So, the sole exception is a canon excommunicating anybody who leaves out the name of his bishop or patriarch prior to the judgement of the Church.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum